I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 9 - CT - 0 0 6 2 6 - S CT CHARLESB. GRAVES , J R.
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 12/ 2009 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . A L B E R T B . S M IT H , III COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: TUNI CA COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L A N T : S T E V E N E L L IS F A R E S E , J R . AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : L ADONN A C
. HOL L AND NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E N D E R E D - 07/ 28/ 2011 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC
. DI CK I NSON, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. W hen a pr os ecut or w as not pr epar ed t o pr ocee d t o tr i al and had not pr oduced a vi deo to d e fe n se c o u n se l, a c irc u it j u d g e h e ld h im in c rim in a l co n tem p t an d o rd e re d h im i ncar cer at ed. B ecaus e t he j udge deni ed t he pr os ecut ordue proc es s of l aw , and bec aus e the
rec o rd c o n tai n s insu ffi cien t evid en ce o f crim inal co n tem p t, w e re v erse an d ren d er. FACTS ¶2
. T uni ca Coun ty Pr os e c ut orCha r l e s Gr a ve s a pp e a r e d i n c i r c ui tc ou r ton M ar ch 12, 2009, w i th thr ee D U I cas es on the docke t . B oth G r aves and def ens e couns el i nf

or m ed

### 2

C i rcui tC ou rtJudg e A l bertS m i th that the fi rs ttw o cases w ere notready t o p roceed b ecause defense cou nsel had no tbeen provided the vi deo recor dings of the arr est s. ¶ 3
. It i s le ss tha n cle a r w h y the v id e o rec o rd in g s w e re n o t p ro d u c e d to d e fe n se c o u n se l, butthe tr ans cr i ptdoes i ndi cat e thatG r aves had r eques t ed the vi deo r ecor di ngs f r om the T uni ca Count y Sher i f

f’ s D epart m ents ever al mont hs pr i ort o the tr i al , a nd they had notbeen p rod u ce d
. W h en ask ed w h y , D ep u ty R icky R ay , referring to o n e o f th e v ideo s, stat ed : “It coul d have be en gott en t o. A l l [ G r aves ] had t o do w as go overt o the pr operty r oom and get th e ta p e , ju s t lik e I d id th is m o rn in g .” ¶4. G r aves ar gued that , af t erhe r eques t ed the t apes , the bal l w as i n the s her i f f’ s cour t , and thathe coul d notuni l at er al l y appea ratthe s her i f f’ s of f i ce a nd t ake pos s es s i on of evi dence
. ¶5. G rav es told Ju d g e S m ith tha the aske d D epu ty R ay to show the tapes t o defense
couns el tw o w eeks ear l i er , butt he deputy had s ai d he di d nothave the t apes w i th hi m att hat t i m e. B oth G r aves and def ens e couns el agr eed that , beca us e the vi deo r ecor di ngs had not been pr oduced by the s her i f f’ s of f i ce, the ca s es s houl d be di s m i s s ed. ¶6. U pon bei ng advi s ed that the f i r s t tw o cas es w er e not r eady t o pr ocee d t o tr i al , J udge S m ith re sp o n d e d : “Y o u a re b o th in c o n tem p t o f c o u rt ! Y o u a re n o t re a d y . S o m e th in g is
w r ong i n thi s thi ng. Y ou bett erbe r eady on thi s thi ng. T hat ’ s tw o cont empt s you goton t he
re c o rd , tw o c a s e s .” ¶7 . W he n the thi r d c as e— State v. Z yl ka

— w as cal l ed, the def ens e att orney w as not present . G raves i nform ed the cou rtthat he had agreed no tt o op po se a cont i nu ance b ecause def ens e couns el had a c onf

l i ct , butthatde f

ens e couns el w oul d ne ed t o m ove the courtf ort he cont i nuance .Graves v . S tat e , _
__ So . 3 d _

__ , 2 01 0 WL 3 22 20 38 (Mi ss. Ct . App . Aug . 1 7, 20 10 ). 1 

### 3 ¶8. J udge Sm i th orde r ed t hatt he t r i al begi n anyw ay, butchanged hi s m i nd and hal t ed the pr ocee di ngs dur i ng t he di r ectexami nat i on of the f i r s tw i tnes s becaus e t he def endanthad no att orney. A l though J udge Sm i th l at erent er ed a w r i t t en or der of cont empt thatr eci t ed that G r aves had bee n hel d i n cont empt dur i ng the Z yl ka tr i al , the St at e conc edes on appea l t hat

“ it d o e s n o t a p p e a r . . . t h a t G ra v e s w a s h e ld in c o n te m p t a th ir d tim e .” ¶9. J udge Sm i th s ent ence d G r aves t o tw o days i n j ai l and f i ned hi m $100. W hi l e G r aves
w a s in jail, Ju d g e S m ith p re sid e d o v e r a c o n tem p t h e a rin g , fo llo w in g w h ich , h e m o d ified h is p rio r o rd e r b y re d u c in g G ra v e s’s jail te rm to tim e se rv e d , b u t left th e $ 1 0 0 fin e in tac t. ¶1 0. G r aves ap pe a l e d h i s c on vi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e , a nd the Cour tof A pp eal s r ever s ed, f i ndi ng ins uf

f i ci entevi dence of

the nec ess ary cr i m i nal i nt ent . W hi l e w e agr ee w i t h t he 1 C o u rt o f A p p e a ls, w e g ra n ted c e rtio ra ri to c lar ify c e rta in a sp e c ts o f th e law o f c o n tem p t. A N A L Y S IS ¶ 1 1
. W h ile e v e ry c a se tu rn s o n its p a rticu lar fa c ts, o u r la w in c lu d e s g e n e ra l ru les th a t a p p ly t o con t em pt proceed i ng s. W e begin our analysi s of this case w i th a b ri ef overvi ew of tho se
ru l e s t o p r o v i d e g u i d a n c e t o o u rj u d g e s a n d n o t i c e t o th e a t t o rn e y s wh o p r a c t i c e b e f o r e t h e m. T h e p u rp o se o f civil co n tem p t i s to c o m p el co m p li a n ce w it h th e c o u r t’s orders , adm oni t i ons, and i nst ruct i ons, w hi l e t he p u rp ose of cri m i nal c ont e m pt i s t o puni s h. ¶12
. Judg es use the p ow er of ci vil con t em pt t o co m pel com pli ance w i th thei r i nst ruct i on s, adm on i t i ons , and pr evi ous or der s ; and they us e the pow erof cr i m i nal cont empt t o punis hIn re S mit h , 926 So. 2 d 87 8, 88 8 (M iss. 2006) (c iting Neely v. St ate , 54 So. 315, 316 2 (Mi ss. 19 11 )). R.K. v. J.K. , 946 So. 2d 764, 778 (Miss. 2007) (citi ng Mizell v. Mizell, 708 So. 2d 55, 64 3 (Mi ss. 19 98 ); Co op er v

. K eye s , 5 10 So . 2 d 5 18 , 5 19 (Mi ss. 19 87 )). Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co. , 221 U. S. 418, 450, 31 S. Ct. 492, 501, 55 L. Ed. 4 79 7 (1 91 1). See, e.g., Sappington v. Sappington , 1 47 So . 2 d 4 94 (Mi ss. 19 62 ). 5 In re Will

iamson , 838 So. 2d 226, 237 (Miss. 2002) ( “I f the pri mary purpose of the 6 co nte m pt o rder is to enf

orc e therights of

priv ateparty litiga

nts or en fo rceco m

pli an ce w itha co urt order, then th e co nte m

pt i s civil .” ). See, e.g., Pu rvi

s v. Pu rvi s , 6 57 So . 2 d 7 94 (Mi ss. 19 94 ). 7 

### 4 i nappr opr i at e beha vi or , s uch as i ns ul t i ng r emar ks t o the court , oract s t hatdemonstr at e the 2
acc us ed “w i l f

ul l y and del i ber at el y i gnor ed the or derof the court . ” A court ’ s i nher entpow er

3 and author i ty t o puni s h l i t i gant s and att orneys f or cr i m i nal cont empt “i s a nec es s ary and i nt egr al partof

t he i ndepende nce of

the j udi ci ary, and i s abs ol ut el y essent i al t o the p e rf o rm a n c e o f t h e d u tie s im p o s e d u p o n th e m b y la w .” 4 ¶1 3
. A lth o u g h m o st co n tem p t is eith er civil or cr im in a l, a s in g le a c t— o r fa ilu re to
a c t— c o u ld lea d to b o th c iv il an d c rim in a l co n tem p t. F o r in sta n c e , an a tto rn e y re fu sin g to 5 compl y w i th a court ’ s or dert o pr oduce a part i cul ardocumentcoul d be hel d i n c ont empt and in c a rc e ra ted u n til the d o c u m e n t i s p ro d u c e d , o r u n til itb e c o m e s c lea r th a t i n c a rc e ra tio n w ill
n o t lea d to c o m p lian c e w ith th e o rd e r. T h is w o u ld b e c iv il co n tem p t. 6 ¶14. B ut t here are m any reasons w hy the at t orney m ay hav e fai l ed t o pr oduce the document
. W her e the r eas on i s f r i vol ous ordi s r es pect f

ul , the j udge may al s o hol d t he
a tto rn e y in c rim in a l co n tem p t an d o rd e r p u n ish m e n t of a fin e , in c a rc e ra tio n fo r a s p e c ific t i m e, orboth. T he j udge m ay det erm i ne thatc r i m i nal c ont empt i s i nappr opr i at e w her e the

7Denn is v . D en ni s , 824 So. 2d 604, 609 (Miss. 2002) (quotingMathews v. Eldridge , 424 8 U. S. 3 19 , 33 3, 9 6 S. C t. 89 3, 90 2, 47 L. Ed . 2 d 1 8 (1 97 6); Ar mst ro ng v. Ma nzo , 380 U.S. 545, 552, 85 S. Ct. 1187, 1191, 14 L. Ed. 2d 62 (1965)). W a lls v. S p e ll , 7 2 2 S o . 2 d 5 6 6 , 5 7 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). 9 

### 5 at t or ne y’ s r e f

us a l t o p r od uc e the do c umen tw a s no tun r e a s on a bl e ordi s r e s pe c t f ul

— f or i ns t ance , w her e the att orney had a good- f ai th bel i ef

thatthe documentw as pr i vi l eged. I n cert ai n narrow ci rcum s t ances , j udges s houl d re cus e and al l ow anot her jud ge to p resi d e ov er the co n tem p t proce ed i n gs. ¶15. Fi r s t , al though not r ai s ed i n thi s cas e, w her e the pr ovi s i ons of C anon 3E of the C ode of J udi ci al C onductappl y, a judge m ustal w ays r ecus e and a l l ow anotherj udge t o pr es i de
overc ont empt pr ocee di ngs , c i vi l orc r i m i nal
. A l s o, w her e an a ccus ed al l egedl y comm i t s an actof cr i m i nal cont empt t hatre qui r es t he j udge t o r el y— i n w hol e ori n part

— on conductt hat
o c c u rre d o u tsid e th e c o u rtro o m , an d th e ju d g e is th e c o m p lain in g p a rty (th a t is, n o p a rty to the l i t i gat i on moved the courtf ora n or derof

c r i m i nal c ont empt ) , due pr oces s r equi r es t hat t he ac c us e d be a f

f or de d a n “ op po r tun i ty t o be h e a r d ‘ a ta mea ni ng f ul t i me a nd i n a
m eani ngf

ul m anner . ’ ” O ne acc us ed of c r i m i nal cont empt i s ent i t l ed t o the s ame pr ot ect i ons 8
as any cr i m i nal def

endant
. Forexampl e, if the puni s hm enti s a f

i ne exc eedi ng $500 or i m pr i s onm entf

orm or e than s i x m onths , the ac cus ed i s ent i t l ed t o a tr i al by j ury. 9 ¶16. O urcas el aw has i ncorpor at ed var i ous l abel s , s uch as di r ect , i ndi r ect , and cons truct i ve cont empt . T hes e l abel s c an s om et i m es l ead t o the f al s e not i on thata pa r t i cul arl abel r equi r es a part i cul arpr ocedur e. R egar dl es s of t he l abel , the gui del i nes s etf or th above s houl d be
a p p lied in c a se s o f c o n tem p t. I n t he c as e bef

or e us t oda y, G r av e s had a due- pr oc e s s r i ght t o no t i c e and a heari ng bef

ore a di f f ere nt j udge.Williamson , 838 So. 2d at 237. 10 Brame v. St ate , 755 So. 2d 1090, 1093 (Miss. 2000) ( citing In re H olm es , 355 So. 2d 677, 11 67 9 (M iss . 1 97 8))
. In re Hampton , 919 So. 2d 949, 955 (Miss. 2006) (citi ng Will iamson , 8 38 So . 2 d at 12 23 7– 38 ; Moulds , 7 91 So . 2 d at 22 4–25 ). In re Hampton , 919 So. 2d at 955 (“[ C] on str uc tiv e co nte m

pt inv olv es a cti on s [ that] are 13 co mmitt ed

outsi dethepre sen ce o f t

heco urt . . . . ”). 

### 6 ¶17
. T his C ou rt

— i n revi ew ing c ri m inal-co n tem p t ca ses— proceed s “ ab i ni t i o a n d w ill det erm i ne on the r ecor d w hetherthe per s on i n cont empt i s gui l ty of cont empt beyond a
r eas onabl e doubt
. ” T he St at e has the bur den of pr ovi ng— f

r om the appe l l at e r ecor d— the 10
e lem e n ts o f c o n tem p t b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. 11 ¶ 1 8
. In th is c a se , itis u n d isp u ted tha t th e co n v ictio n s in v o lv e crim in a l co n tem p t. T h e S tate cont ends thatG r aves ’ s c onducta m ount ed t o di r ectc r i m i nal c ont empt , w hi ch “invol ves
w o rd s s p o k e n o r a c tio n s c o m m itt e d in th e p re se n c e o f th e c o u rt th a t ar e c a lcu late d to embar r as s orpr eventthe or der l y admi ni s tr at i on of j us t i ce. ” O n t he otherhand, G r aves

12 cont ends he w as puni s hed f orthe out
- of

- courtconductm ent i oned i n J udge Sm i th’ s cont empt
o rd e r, so h e a rg u e s th e c itatio n s w e re fo r in d ire c t co n tem p t. 13 ¶1 9. I n t he Mur

phy c a s e , J u d g e S m ith h e ld G ra v e s in c o n tem p t b e c a u se h e “ fa iled to adequa t el y pr epar e f

orthi s cas e [ and ] w hol l y f ai l ed t o f ol l ow thi s [ c] our t ’ s pr evi ous or der i n thi s m att er . . . . M r . G r aves . . . [ i s ] her eby i n cont empt of thi s [ c] our tby [ sic ] failin g to f ol l ow i t s pr evi ous or der
. ” A nd conce rni ng W oods , Ju d g e S m ith h e ld th a t G ra v e s “ h a d [n o t]
a sk e d fo r a c o n tin u a n c e a s re q u ire d , n o r . . . v iew e d th e ta p e [th a t] th e a rre stin g o ffic e r sa id thatei theratt orney coul d have obt ai ned. ” I n s um m ary, much of the of f endi ng conductci t ed by J udge Sm i th occurr ed— ors houl d have oc curr ed— out s i de the court room, s o w e agr eeR.K. , 946 So. 2d at 778. 14 Id. 15 

### 7 w ith G ra v e s th a t th is c a s e is o n e o f in d ire c t cr im in a l co n tem p t— th a t is, fo r a c ts th a t— in
w hol e ori n part

— occurr ed out s i de the pr es ence of the j udge. ¶2 0. I n pr e s e nt i ng i t s c a s e on a pp e a l , the St a t e ha s the bu r de n of pr ov i ng t o us be yond a
r eas onabl e doubtthatG r aves “w i l f ul l y and del i ber at el y i gnor ed the or derof the court . ” T he

14 St at e cont ends i tm eti t s bur den i n the Mur phy cas e bec aus e G r aves f ai l ed t o re tr i eve the vi deot ape a nd gi ve i tt o def ens e couns el despi t e t he cour t ’ s pre vi ous orde rt o do s o. J udge Sm i th as ked O f

f i cerR i cky R ay ( the arr es t i ng of f i ceri n the under l yi ng D U I case) w hether G ra v e s h a d ac c e ss to th e tap e . O ffic e r R a y rep lied : “A ll [G ra v e s] ha d to d o w a s g o o v e r to the pr operty r oom and getthe t ape, j us tl i ke I di d thi s m orni ng. ” ¶2 1. O n t he ot her ha nd , G r a ve s c l a i ms tha t he ha d r e qu e s t e d the t a pe months be f or e t he
se c o n d tri al da te an d th at th e o ffi ce r nev er release d i t to him
. G rav es also clai m s th a t it
w oul d have be en i m pr operf orhi m t o have t aken the t ape f r om the pr operty r oom , “ther eby b re a k in g th e c h a in -o f- c u s to d y fo r t h e e v id e n c e .” ¶2 2. T her e i s no othe re vi de nc e i n the r e c or d s ug ge s t i ng t hatG r aves “w i l f ul l y and del i ber at el y” i gnor ed the court ’ s or der
. W e hol d thatthe St at e present ed i ns uf f i ci ent evi dence t o pr ove, beyond a r eas onabl e doubt , thatG r aves “w i l f ul l y and del i ber at el y i gnor ed the or derof the court ” i n the Mur phy cas e. A nd beca us e i ti s undi s put ed thatther e w as no

15See, e.g., Premeau x v . S mit h , 5 69 So . 2 d 6 81 , 6 84 (Mi ss. 19 90 ) (e xis ten ce o f a va lid order 16 is p rereq uis iteto a findingof

indire ct o r co ns tru ctiveco nte m pt)
. In re S mit h , 926 So. 2d at 888 (cit ing Williamson , 8 38 So . 2 d at 22 6). 17 Co ok v. St ate , 483 So. 2d 371, 376 (Miss. 1986) ( citing Ma yb err y v. Penn syl

va ni a , 400 18 U. S. 45 5, 46 5– 66 (19 71 )). Se e Cook , 483 So. 2d at 377 n.6. 19 In re Murchison , 3 49 U. S. 13 3, 75 S. Ct . 6 23 , 9 9 L . E d. 94 2 (1 95 5). 20 

### 8 pr i orcourtor deri n the W oods cas e, ther e w as no i ndi r ectcr i m i nal cont empt as a mat t erof l a w. 16 ¶23. B uteven i f

the St at e had meti t s burde n, t he convi ct i on fori ndi r ectcr i m i nal cont empt coul d not s t a nd
. J ud ge Smi th was the c ompl a i na ntf ora l l e ge d c r i mi na l c on t e mptt hat
occurr ed, atl eas ti n par t , out s i de hi s pre s ence , so G r aves w as ent i t l ed t o due- pr oces s not i ce and a hear i ng. A s di s cus s ed above , cr i m i nal cont empt of t en t akes the f

or m of conductt hat 17 “embarr as s [ es ] the court , ” orthat“cons i s t [ s ] of an open i ns ul t. . . t o the per s on of t he p re s id in g ju [d g e ] . . . .” ¶24. W e have hel d that , i n cas es of i ndi r ect or cons truct i ve cr i m i nal cont empt , “w her e the tr i al j udge has s ubs t ant i al per s onal i nvol vementi n t he pr os ecut i on, the ac cus ed cont emnor
m us tbe tr i ed by anotherj udge. ” W hi l e w e cont i nue t o e m phas i ze thatnotevery per s onal 18 i nvol vementr equi r es r ecus al , exampl es of “s ubs t ant i al per s onal i nvol vementi n t he 19 pr os ecut i on” w arr ant i ng r ecus al i ncl ude ca s es w her e the tr i al j udge ac t s as a “one- m an gr and j ury; ” w her e the tr i al j udge i s “ i ns trum ent al i n the i ni t i at i on of the cons truct i ve- cont empt 20Terry v. St ate , 7 18 So . 2 d 1 09 7, 11 05 (Mi ss. 19 98 ). 21 Cook , 483 So. 2d at 376. 22 

### 9 pr ocee di ngs ; ” and w her e the tr i al j udge “a ct s as pr os ecut ora nd j udge. ” I n thi s cas e, J udge 21 22 Sm i th s houl d nothave pr es i ded overG r aves ’ s cont empt pr ocee di ng. ¶25. W e hol d thatG r aves w as deni ed hi s c ons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o due pr oces s of l aw . H e w as g iv e n n o n o tice o f th e h e a rin g , an d h e w a s n o t in fo rm e d o f th e c h a rg e s a g a in st h im u n til
m om ent s bef

or e he w as t aken t o j ai l
. W hen the courtdi d l at erconducta hea r i ng, G r aves w as notpr es ent , and the hea r i ng w as conduct ed by Judge S m i th, ra thert han a di f f er entj udge, as
r equi r ed by our pr ece dent
. A nd i n fi ndi ng G r aves w as i n cont empt of court , t he j udge r el i ed
on m at t ers that di d n ot occur i n h i s pres ence. U nd er s uch ci rcum stances, w e m ustrever se and render G raves’ s conv i ct i on s. CO NC L US I ON ¶26. O f

the thr ee c ount s of

cont em pt l i st ed i n t he t r i al court ’ s or der , one— Z yl ka

— w as
u n d ispu tedly erro n eo u s; an o ther— W oods

— w as uns uppor t ed by any e vi dence ; and the thi r d— Mur

phy

— w a s n o t su p p o rte d b y su ffic ien t ev id e n c e o f th e n e c e ss a ry in ten t. A n d in all three ca ses , G ra v e s w as d en ied h is r igh t t o d u e p roc ess. A cc o rdin g ly, G rav es’s convi ct i ons ar e r ever s ed and the or derof the Tuni ca Count y C i r cui tC our ti s vaca t ed. ¶27. THE J UDGM EN T OF THE COURT OF AP P E AL S I S AF F I RMED . T HE J UDG M ENT OF THE CI RCU I T CO UR T OF TUNI CA C OU NTY I S REVERSED AND RE NDE RE D. W A LL ER , C . J. , C A R LSO N , P. J. , R A N D O LP H , LA M A R , K I TC H EN S, CH AN DL E R A ND P I E RC E , J J . , CO NC UR . KI NG , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .